Citation verification

The label the assistant produced, plus what kind of thing it claims to be — a judgment, a statute, a document in your vault.

Your vault by containment; the statute corpus by looking up the actual section; the judgment index by title and corroborating signals.

Anything that is not verified carries a caution explaining precisely what was and was not established. Render verified differently from the other two — that is the whole point of the field.

No, and this is deliberate. Our judgment index holds case metadata rather than judgment text, so the most we can establish is that a case answering that description exists — which is not the case saying what was claimed. A judgment citation caps at ambiguous, and matching the year, court or neutral citation strengthens the wording of the caution without changing the verdict. A metadata path to verified is exactly the failure this endpoint was rebuilt to remove.

Because similarity would let a fabricated clause verify against a genuine clause on the same topic — the two read alike. Containment cannot do that: the words are in your document or they are not. It is a stricter test than the case-law and statute resolvers can offer, precisely because we hold your documents in full.

No, and the response says so. It means we could not find it, and our corpus is not complete. Verify it against the official source before relying on it — but do not read unresolved as a finding of fabrication.

No. A verified vault quotation means those words are in your document. The clause may still be a bad clause, and a document that does say something is not the same as it being right. Verification is about provenance, not merit.

Where our citation graph holds no treatment data, a judgment result says in terms that subsequent treatment was not checked, rather than staying silent. Silence about overruling reads as reassurance, and it should be earned.